Introduction
In 2006 the small group wearing the moniker “Spring Church of Christ” in Spring, Texas hosted their annual “Contending For the Faith Lectureship.” In that year the topic under consideration was “Anti-ism—From God Or Man?” In conjunction with the lectureship series, a lecture book was printed to help further the spread of their intended message. I came into possession of this work, and spent some time at the wearisome task of examining the teaching therein. What will follow is a series of articles reviewing portions of that lecture book.
Why only review portions? As is so often the case, when those few institutional brethren who will discuss these issues take time to discuss them, they make attempts to tie them into some inane and obscure doctrines that are present among churches of Christ. For instance, they will attempt to liken brethren who oppose the use of the collection to support human institutions such as orphans homes, preaching schools, etc., with those who oppose the use of separate Bible classes or who bind the idea that Christians must only use one container when partaking of the Lord’s supper. Thus we see no reason to review articles that condemn ideas that we agree are not biblical.
Also, there is a great deal of repetition of arguments from lecture to lecture. This is certainly expected in a lecture series with a topic such as this one. Many of the issues which were discussed overlap to some extent, and this tends to produce the overlap in argumentation and explanation. So if we simply reviewed articles, there would no doubt be a great deal of repetition in this series of reviews. Rather than deal with one article at a time, we choose to look at each position offered and consider them as a cross section of the lectures that were presented.
Further, a sizable portion of the publication is dedicated to the review of polemic discussions that took place between brethren during the height of these issues. They review such works as “The Cogdill-Woods Debate,” the “Britnell-Woods Debate”, and the “Highers-Bingham Debate.” While we would disagree with what these brethren believe to be the outcome of such discussions, it would not serve to “review a review” because that would inevitably lead to an attempt to impugn motives. It is not our intention to run an ad hominem campaign against these brethren, but rather to consider some of the arguments that they offer in light of divine scripture (cf. 1 John 4:1).
Also at the outset of these considerations, I will offer both my respect and commendation to these brethren for attempting to deal openly with these issues that have divided the Lord’s people. Having grown up in institutional churches, my parents even serving as house-parents in one of the church sponsored children’s home institutions, I had never heard a discussion or lesson which considered the practice in light of the scriptures. It was not until my family left the institutional position that we even had any real knowledge of the issues surrounding the division. Thus, I am thankful for these brethren who have the willingness to endeavor to present a biblical case for that which they believe and practice.
By way of introduction to these articles, we will begin by considering the introduction in the book written by its editor brother David P. Brown.
Brother Brown notes in his introduction regarding the terms “anti-ism,” “liberal,” and “institutional” are used to designate the different factions and divisions among churches of Christ. He notes:
…The fact that we are forced to seek terms in an attempt to identify each other’s errors as each one of us sees them in the other, implies that somebody is wrong somewhere. For if we were what we ought to be in or relationship to Christ (What the New Testament of Christ authorizes us to be, there would be no scriptural reason for us to refer to one another by any other terms that the Scriptural term such as brethren, members of the church, Christians, and so on. (p.2).
With this point we agree whole-heartedly with brother Brown! The prophet Amos wrote “Can two walk together unless they are agreed” (Amos 3:3)? Of course the answer to the question in implied by the question itself. There obviously is some basis upon which we disagree on matters of doctrine and Biblical interpretation that preclude us from “walking together.” The reason that men must manufacture such terms to designate the division among us is because some of us have neglected to use the Bible as our sole guide in religious matters (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Brown would say, “These brethren have bound where God has not bound,” thus arguing that it is those of us whom he deems as “anti” who are operating outside of God’s authority. Of course we would argue that the wedge of division was driven by some “loosing where God has not loosed” and taking liberty where God has restricted. Only a careful examination of the scriptures can show the truth. It is with that fact in mind that we attempt to examine the argumentation in the series of lectures under the microscope of divine truth.
Brother Brown further states “it must be understood that from our perspective we have no problem with those who are labeled “antis” practicing what they believe if they do not bind on us as an obligatory matter their particular views” (p.3). He then lists two of the issues that divide us, limited benevolence, and the sponsoring church arrangement. He notes that if those he has labeled “anti” would not bind these doctrines then we could have fellowship. This assumption is based upon the fact that he believes these items to be optional. He states plainly “thus, they[those he deems as “anti”] have made obligatory that which we firmly believe is optional…”(p.3). We do not deny that these doctrines, as well as some others, divide us. However, it is incumbent upon those brethren who claim that they are optional to show that the Bible authorizes the things which they defend as acceptable practices for the local church. Let us consider it from another angle wherein Brown and his brethren would be considered as “binding where God has not bound.” A member in the Christian Church may say the same thing of them with regard to instrumental music. “They have made obligatory that which we firmly believe is optional.” Would Brother Brown and his brethren accept it and say, “Well, we’ll consider it optional as well so that we can be in fellowship”? Of course not, because they believe (and rightly so) that there is no authority for instrumental music found in the scriptures, and to add it is to operate outside of the divine pattern to which we are to hold fast (c.f. 2 Timothy 1:13). We will argue the same, and on the same basis, regarding the issues of the sponsoring church arrangement, limited benevolence, and support of human institutions from the treasury, etc. We will note that we must have Bible authority for all that we say and do religiously (Colossians 3:17). Where is the scriptural authority for such things?
Brother Brown correctly notes that all churches that he would label as “anti” are not in fellowship with one another. It is in the same manner as churches that choose to support human institutions, employ the sponsoring church arrangement, practice general benevolence, etc. are not in fellowship with one another. He writes “primarily this is the case with those who are not respecting the authority of the Bible, tolerating brethren who have not repented of sin in their lives, error on divorce and remarriage (the “anti” churches have their own problems with error on MDR, but have not formally divided over it), who declare that the church of Christ is a denomination and who are adopting various denominational doctrines” (p.4). We agree entirely with the stated premise! When people do not respect the authority of the Bible and depart from it, division is the natural result.
Let us deal briefly with his parenthetical statement “the anti churches have their own problems with error on MDR, but have not formally divided over it” (p.4). This is a somewhat arbitrary and obviously un-researched statement. The fact is, he speaks of the Lord’s church within the framework of a denominational concept. When he says “…they have not formally divided…” Who is “they”? In as much as the Lord’s church does not have a central organization or denominational hierarchy, we are left with the largest and smallest organization provided by the Lord for His church–the local church (cf. Philippians 1:1). Thus, while it may be true that some churches that Brown would label “anti” may tolerate, practice, and/or preach error on MDR that certainly is not true of the local churches that I have been associated with through the years. Sermons have been preached proclaiming the truth on the matter, those who have held false doctrines have been noted, and local churches have withdrawn from them according to the divine pattern (1 Corinthians 5, Romans 16:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14). Thus to argue that nothing has been done “formally” is both absurd and patently false.
As brother Brown continues, he states “If we do not have the right attitude toward God and his word and/or we do not intensely desire Bible authority for all we believe and practice, then at some point we will become caught up in some kind of error”(p.5). We could not have stated it better! The lack of concern for ascertaining authority from the scriptures will inevitably lead to the practice of error. It is then imperative that we devote our hearts, souls, and minds to a love of the truth that we not be lead away (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:10).
Brethren and friends, we submit this series of articles to you in the hopes that you will “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1), and like the noble Bereans “search the scriptures…to see whether these things are so” (Acts 17:11). We do not submit these articles with the purpose of being combative, insulting, or demeaning to any person, group of people or local church. Our desire is to consider what the scriptures say on these matters under consideration and “… sanctify the Lord God in [our] hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh [us] a reason of the hope that is in [us] with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). We submit them to you with that thought and idea in mind, and hope that you will consider the arguments in the light of divine truth. Each of us is given the charge to “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). We hope that you will consider them in that light, test them against God’s word, and make your conclusions based upon God’s revealed will.
